> > So I agree with Section 4, but it would be nice to have a more
> > meaningful name than "context set". "CQL Profile" seems not bad -
> > its even what you titled your proposal page ;-)
> I'm afraid that won't do. The things currenty called context sets are
> not profiles, just as (say) the BIB-1 or Utility attribute sets are
> not profiles: they're just collections of named things from which
> profiles can be built.
> The obvious alternative name, in fact, would be "attribute set", since
> the analogy with a Z39.50 attribute set is so strong; but I doubt
> anyone wants to go that way?
My 'obvious' alternative name would be a CQL namespace, after XML
namespaces which look similar and achieve the same end. In an XML oriented
world, 'attribute set' would likely be construed as 'a collection of
xml attribute nodes' which is certainly not what we want to imply.
That said, I prefer 'context' as it still carries the same sort of feel
without getting confused as to what we're talking about when you say
things like 'the srw namespace'.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I